STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All 
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such 
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the 
Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191.
Congress has asked us to “annually initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of 
advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.”
1
  I approve this Notice to the extent it meets 
that statutory requirement.
But I cannot support the kabuki theater that recent section 706 proceedings have been and that 
this one is sure to be.  Here is the sad reality:  It doesn’t matter what the public says or what the data 
show.  When this proceeding ends, the FCC will issue a negative finding about the state of broadband 
deployment.  And that’s because such a finding is necessary to maintain the limitless regulatory authority 
over Internet service providers, and perhaps other online entities, that the Commission thinks it has under 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
To its “credit,” the Commission makes abundantly clear how it will reach this preordained result.  
The Notice is filled with page after page of new conditions, novel tests, and nebulous qualifiers designed 
to give the agency plenty of ways to ensure a negative finding when the pen hits the paper.
2
The Notice’s headline-inspired 25 Mbps benchmark for fixed broadband is a prime example of 
the arbitrariness of this proceeding.
3
  The FCC uses that benchmark only when convenient—namely, to 
claim that broadband deployment is insufficient.  But then, why did it decide that 10 Mbps was good 
enough for rural Americans when it poured $10.8 billion into the Connect America Fund last year?
4
  And 
why did it pat itself on the back for giving low-income Americans a 10 Mbps option when it approved the 
AT&T/DirecTV transaction just last week?
5
  If the FCC truly believes a 25 Mbps connection “has 
become ‘table stakes’ in 21st century communications,”
6
it shouldn’t relegate certain Americans to a slow 
lane for broadband.  It shouldn’t tolerate, much less deepen, the divide between the digital haves and the 
rural and low-income have-nots.
                                                     
1
Telecommunications Act § 706(b).
2
See, e.g., Notice at para. 8 (new condition that an area is unserved unless it has “both fixed and mobile 
broadband”); Notice at paras. 41–46 (new test for broadband “consistency”); Notice at paras. 50–52 (qualifying 
objective test by listing “additional factors” the FCC will consider such as “access to multiple service providers”).
3
Notice at para. 24.
4
Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, 14-192, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15644, 
15649, para. 15 (2014).
5
Applications of AT&T Inc. and DIRECTV For Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and 
Authorizations, MB Docket No. 14-90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-94, Appendix B at Condition 
VI.2.a–b (July 28, 2015).
6
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a 
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126, 
2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC 
Rcd 1375, 1480 (2015) (Statement of Chairman Tom Wheeler), available at http://go.usa.gov/3scbB.
2Similarly, the FCC has found the benchmark a useful crutch when claiming that the broadband 
market is not competitive.  Artificially ratchet up the standard, and voila!  Fewer competitors will be 
found.  But the FCC didn’t limit its net neutrality rules to 25 Mbps service—it applied them to everything 
faster than dial-up.
7
  And in another vote today, the FCC is bending over backwards to manipulate the 
market for special access services with speeds of 1.5 Mbps.
8
In sum:  A serious agency would evaluate the market using consistent, objective criteria.  But the 
FCC simply chooses the preferred policy outcome of the moment and works its way backward.  For these 
reasons, I dissent in part.
                                                     
7
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory 
Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601, 5682, para. 187 (2015).
8
Technology Transitions et al., GN Docket No. 13-5, RM-11358, WC Docket No. 05-25, RM-10593, Report and 
Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15-97 (Aug. 6, 2015).